Group of hippies at the mall today with signs saying "Zimmerman is not a hero!" and "Zimmerman still has blood on his hands!" while all wearing hoodies and having Skittles/Tea. Meanwhile I was by wearing a Kel-Tec T-shirt (Kel-Tec PF9 is the gun Invader Zim used to ban TrayTray). Oh the looks, the dirty looks, I feel so dirty and I need to bathe in their tears.

Commie friends and myself discussed it at length earlier on. One believed the case was a real race issue that highlighted current race relations and oppression under capitalism. The general consensus amongst us, however, was that the case is insignificant, and it was even suggested that it served as a distraction. The Bradley Manning Case, for example, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Snowden Affair.

I raised the theory that could very well be the bourgeoisie seeking to divide the proletariat further on race lines. I think there is a degree of Black racism because of the case, but it was just a thought.

I think you're making an issue out of something that is not there. Blaming the bourgeoisie for every single tiny thing that goes wrong in a society that just happens to be capitalist, regardless of whether it has to do with economics or not, is just plain demonization and IMO a cheap tactic to advance your cause.

That's what we were trying to answer, if it served a purpose for the bourgeoisie or not.

We concluded it doesn't aid our cause, and could even harm it. For that reason, we're suspicious. We don't agree with the rest of the Left, because we don't see the case as a huge thing, reflective of race relations. Because of that, we didn't blame the bourgeoisie.

But the emphasis put on this case was definitely artificial. While the bourgeoisie didn't cause the shooting directly, they've probably manipulated it for their own ends.

And capitalism intensifies that lack of trust. Divisions within the proletariat are perpetuated by the bourgeoisie, there's no doubt about that. Perhaps not the Martin-Zimmerman case, but in general racial divisions are unnecessarily emphasised, nationalism is encouraged, and collaborating with class enemies becomes the norm.

Common class interests between the bourgeoisie are highlighted, and the conflicts - which are the overwhelming majority of class relations - are ignored. Common interests among the workers of other nationalities are ignored, and the conflicts highlighted. Overreporting of race-on-race crime in the media, the fear cultivated through things like the 'war on terror'.

In Australia, the issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat is a major issue. But why? They account for less than 1% of our annual immigration intake. More people overstay their visas after arriving in the airport. Racist terms such as 'boat people' become the norm, 'fuck off, we're full' becomes the racist rallying cry. People thinly hide their xenophobia with, 'oh, I just don't think we should let illegals in.' What illegals? Refugees are not illegal, and their mode of transport makes no difference. 'We shouldn't have to take them.' Why not? The highest number of refugees come from Afghanistan, a country we helped invade.

You're implying the bourgeoisie have an altruistic interdependent relationship with each other; this not the case. For example, cartels are extremely unstable because people have a predisposition to be self-centered. Each party would be motivated to sacrifice their partners to maximize their own profits.
Imagine 2 cigarette companies each with an option to advertise; if one company advertises, they get way more customers, but if both companies advertise then they cancel each other out and it turns into a huge waste of money. The companies agreed to not advertise at all but eventually someone broke the arrangement. Eventually the companies themselves lobbied to ban cigarette advertisements because they kept screwing up. It's like a game of chicken.
I suppose this example would count as the bourgeoisie using government for their own gain but what you have in mind would be on such a massive scale that it borders on paranoia. People just do not have the ability to cooperate without some kind of government intervention; that's why things like taxes exist in the first place. But I think we both agree that the bigger the government, the more prone to corruption, either from influence by lobbyists or just the selfishness of politicians.

If I was implying such a thing, it was not intentional. There are definitely conflicts within the bourgeoisie class. I have a good article on the matter that I'd like to refer to at the moment, but unfortunately it's saved on my personal computer, not what I'm currently using.

The problem with 'big government' is that it's kind of an undefined term.